The Baron | 33m | 9s | Wexford Developments

[ION]

I also think Edmonton and it's more fringier/crunchier residents who pine for small-town Canadiana life need to move the eff out of Edmonton... It's big city with lots of ambition. Don't like that? Don't live there... Move one ANY one of the countless dying towns around Edmonton that could use a blast of progressive urbane sophisticates with good taste and style to match. After all I'm currently remote working from... ahem... Drayton Valley and there isn't a single soul I'd hang out with out here even if I wanted to or had time... Don't like skyscrapers? Don't live in a city with the tallest building in Canada outside of Toronto... Edmonton isn't very Acrophobia friendly if you hadn't noticed... from the large and deep canyon running through it...

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

Look at the photo you posted above, you see the post office and the wooden building across the street. The wooden building is probably older but would not stand the test of time, especially in a large city. We could preserve the facades and incorporate them both into a larger building. The post office would make a nice podium but the wooden building would look awkward, you would have to enclose it in a glass atrium or something to make it work. Which would mean moving the facade inside the building away from the sidewalk. I don't think such a building would be worth it unless it had an incredible story about someone famous.

I guess we got a lot of work to do regarding those photos!

Oh for sure and I wholeheartedly agree! For more flimsily constructed boomtown buildings you really do need to do the math and see if there’s historical, architectural, or an even economical reason to keep them around. Say with Beljan’s Tipton Investment Building down the street. If it was in a terrible condition when they had bought it I wouldn’t have begrudged them for saying “look, it’s gotta’ go.” But with this one we’re talking about a sturdily constructed brick building with historic ties to Whyte Ave’s development, a prominent community builder, and Alberta’s early Arabic community. Other buildings have been given protective designations for far less. To me it'd be a shame for this one to slip away.

I also think Edmonton and it's more fringier/crunchier residents who pine for small-town Canadiana life need to move the eff out of Edmonton... It's big city with lots of ambition. Don't like that? Don't live there... Move one ANY one of the countless dying towns around Edmonton that could use a blast of progressive urbane sophisticates with good taste and style to match. After all I'm currently remote working from... ahem... Drayton Valley and there isn't a single soul I'd hang out with out here even if I wanted to or had time... Don't like skyscrapers? Don't live in a city with the tallest building in Canada outside of Toronto... Edmonton isn't very Acrophobia friendly if you hadn't noticed... from the large and deep canyon running through it...

Come on, there’s a very real difference between arguing for the preservation of a historic building — in a provincial designated historic area mind you — and being a backwards hick that “pines for small-town Canadiana life” and who needs “to move the eff out of Edmonton.”

This really is a case of two sides of the same coin (NIMBYs aside). People like me, looking to save a small sliver of the city’s history, and boosters of this project all care about the same thing: Edmonton and wanting it to be the best it possibly can be. How we get there is what differs. In my eyes we’ll achieve that through protecting what little of our collective history we have left: It’ll help create a tangible sense of place, while keeping hold of the city’s story, and providing small scale storefronts to small scale tenants. In the boosters’ eyes we’ll achieve that through more modern buildings: It’ll help freshen the city’s image while densifying, and providing more bodies to support more businesses and a more urban lifestyle.

If you look through my posts, its clear I love Edmonton and its history dearly. I've devoted so much time to it. I’m not a stooge of NIMBYism nor some anti-development agenda holding, small-town thinker for simply saying “I’d love this project if it was on literally any other plot of unimportant land.”

If you didn't tell me it was an older building I wouldn't have noticed to really cared because it's been so heavily modified that there's no real redeeming beauty left in it...

As for the building not looking historic, it's really a non-starter. It still maintains its built form, and aside from the missing cornice and application of stucco, it differs little from how it would’ve looked when new. A restoration could seriously do wonders. You need to look no further than to 104th Street’s most handsome building. You know the Phillips Building? That big, beautiful, Redcliffe bricked, Edwardian warehouse? Here’s how ugly it looked like prior to its restoration:

 

[Kaizen]

Nicely said @_Citizen_Dane_ . I'm so torn on this one as I love the design.
I think Wexford is hedging their next moves - using heritage restoration grant and density bonus to rework the Archibald restoration into the proposal. Hoping so anyways. They certainly have upped there game in design in my opinion as compared to their efforts across the street (Raymond Blk), which I think is decent too.
Regardless, I don't think this one will fly, and we'll be left with "lipstick on a pig". Sometimes that ain't too bad...

The Baron plan "as is" would be killer in sooo many locations in the city I feel - Old Strath, Jasper Ave, Quarters, 124th, etc. etc.
I wonder what the outcomes of the recent feasibility/assessment in regards to the viability of restoring the existing structure was?

 

[ChazYEG]

Oh for sure and I wholeheartedly agree! For more flimsily constructed boomtown buildings you really do need to do the math and see if there’s historical, architectural, or an even economical reason to keep them around. Say with Beljan’s Tipton Investment Building down the street. If it was in a terrible condition when they had bought it I wouldn’t have begrudged them for saying “look, it’s gotta’ go.” But with this one we’re talking about a sturdily constructed brick building with historic ties to Whyte Ave’s development, a prominent community builder, and Alberta’s early Arabic community. Other buildings have been given protective designations for far less. To me it'd be a shame for this one to slip away.


Come on, there’s a very real difference between arguing for the preservation of a historic building — in a provincial designated historic area mind you — and being a backwards hick that “pines for small-town Canadiana life” and who “to move the eff out of Edmonton.”

This really is a case of two sides of the same coin (NIMBYs aside). People like me, looking to save a small sliver of the city’s history, and boosters of this project all care about the same thing: Edmonton and wanting it to be the best it possibly can be. How we get there is what differs. In my eyes we’ll achieve that through protecting what little of our collective history we have left: It’ll help create a tangible sense of place, while keeping hold of the city’s story, and providing small scale storefronts to small scale tenants. In the boosters’ eyes we’ll achieve that through more modern buildings: It’ll help freshen the city’s image while densifying, and providing more bodies to support more businesses and a more urban lifestyle.

If you look through my posts, its clear I love Edmonton and its history dearly. I've devoted so much time to it. I’m not a stooge of NIMBYism nor some anti-development agenda holding, small-town thinker for simply saying “I’d love this project if it was on literally any other plot of unimportant land.”


As for the building not looking historic, it's really a non-starter. It still maintains its built form, and aside from the missing cornice and application of stucco, it differs little from how it would’ve looked when new. A restoration could seriously do wonders. You need to look no further than to 104th Street’s most handsome building. You know the Phillips Building? That big, beautiful, Redcliffe bricked, Edwardian warehouse? Here’s how ugly it looked like prior to its restoration:

View attachment 290844

I could've never imagined that the Phillips was ever this ugly! It's probably my favorite building on 104 st!

As for this project here, I'd have it built anywhere in the downtown core, Oliver, even in Old Strathcona, as long as we can keep the city's history and identity in place, where it belongs.

@ION As an immigrant, a recent one, actually, it was really important that I could bond with the city when I first moved here, and one of the most significant ways was through the city's rich history and gorgeous stock of historical buildings.
I wouldn't feel so attached and attracted to a generic "all-steel-and-glass" modern north american city as I am to Edmonton.

Coming from a city with a rich history, pioneer not only in Latin America, but the American continent as a whole, in the late XIX century/beginning of the XX century, that later would basically turn its back on the past, let most of its historical buildings be replaced by souless towers and strip malls, only to find out half a century after most of the damage was done that the city was no longer recognizable by new residents as what it once represented, I cherish the efforts of anyone who will stand up for preserving a city's heritage.

And coming from someone who lived in 2 of the largest cities on Earth (and goes to a third at least yearly whenever there isn't a pandemic), cosmopolitan, urban and vibrant as they are, preserving history and maintaining/bringing back low scale retail outlets and pedestrian scale buildings and surroundings brought some of their most degraded areas back from the dead, without ever impacting the grandeur and urban feel of these areas.

I've noticed that we agree in quite a few stuff, reading your most recent posts in the forum, and it's nice to see a fellow "environmentalist" for a change, but in this one, I'll have to disagree with you, my friend.

 

[northlands]

For me, the loss of the more affordable retail space that local, non-chain businesses tend to occupy is what really sucks with development, because it's these unique locally operated businesses that have been so fundamental in bringing Whyte Ave to the district it is today. I doubt either When Pigs Fly or Burlington's could sustainably afford the rent of the CRUs in this proposed development, and instead some largely uninteresting chains are going to occupy them instead. If you need any proof of that, look across the street to what is in the Raymond Block.

I will say I do like the development substantially more after seeing the more detailed renders, however

 

[occidentalcapital]

Streetwall is needed here - a one storey building was always an underutilization of the site. This one is not where your valiant efforts should be directed.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

If this was somewhere downtown sure, but I’ll disagree here. The Archibald Block isn’t some sore thumb standing alone. Half of Whyte Ave between 104th and 105th is of similar scale. There’s eighteen buildings along that section, eight of which are one-storey. Another two (10422 and 10462) are smaller-than-average two-storey buildings that stand barely half-a-floor taller than the Archibald does. You’ve got brand new builds like Malt & Mortar which conform to this scale. Then there's the really low-hung Tipton Investment and Chapman Brothers Buildings that’ll stand forever given their historic designations. If anything, a good part of its streetwall here is defined by its very average height.

Even still, if you’re dead set on the Archibald being a waste of space, there’s ways to densify the lot while keeping the building around. Think of what Beljan did with the Tipton Investment Block for instance. In that case, two storeys were added to the rear of an existing one-story building. That could be done here as well — with even more floors if you wanted! As shown in the fire insurance map I linked earlier, the original 1909 portion of the Block covers only half of the lot. The red and green portion of the building is a far later addition that could easily be torn down to make room for some thing bigger.

 

[itom987]

Perhaps pressuring the city of Edmonton Archives to pull out a photo showing how the building originally looked would help your cause.

 

[CplKlinger]

Perhaps pressuring the city of Edmonton Archives to pull out a photo showing how the building originally looked would help your cause.

Someone could also purchase a copy of the Alberta Archives photo which was posted above. They're compressed on the website, but very high quality when they've scanned and delivered. For example, here is a comparison of a picture of Fort Saskatchewan that's on their website, and the same copy which was scanned and emailed to me after I purchased it.

I'm pretty confident that we'd have a better view of that building if someone purchased the picture.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

Perhaps pressuring the city of Edmonton Archives to pull out a photo showing how the building originally looked would help your cause.

Both the City and Provincial Archives are closed until further notice given the lockdown.

 

[CplKlinger]

Both the City and Provincial Archives are closed until further notice given the lockdown.

Sure, but when they open up again it's just a simple matter of telling them what you want via email and paying them online. All we need are the staff to be back.

Edit: From their statement online, it looks like the staff are still working; it's just closed to the public.

COVID-19 Information | Provincial Archives of Alberta

provincialarchives.alberta.ca

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

Sure, but when they open up again it's just a simple matter of telling them what you want via email and paying them online. All we need are the staff to be back.

Edit: From their statement online, it looks like the staff are still working; it's just closed to the public.

COVID-19 Information | Provincial Archives of Alberta

provincialarchives.alberta.ca

Yes, sorry, I should have also included the Glenbow Archives in that list. That's where that particular photo came from. Their photo collections are being held by the UofC. The statement from them suggests it maybe be possible to get a copy while they're off site. I might shoot them a message and see.

Glenbow Digital Collection | Glenbow Library and Archives

University of Calgary Libraries & Cultural Resources

glenbow.ucalgary.ca

 

[CplKlinger]

Yes, sorry, I should have also included the Glenbow Archives in that list. That's where that particular photo came from. Their photo collections are being held by the UofC. The statement from them suggests it might be possible to get a copy while they're off site. I might shot them a message and see.

Glenbow Digital Collection | Glenbow Library and Archives

University of Calgary Libraries & Cultural Resources

glenbow.ucalgary.ca

Ah that makes sense, I should have paid closer attention to the image. Thanks for the quick response

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

Well here it is, the first comprehensive history on the Archibald Block (as far as I’m aware anyways). My writing isn't that great, so I'm not hoping to convince anybody. I do hope though that it’ll at least be some food for thought to help those opposed to the building's preservation understand why me and others think there's some kind of value in its story and continued existence:

The Archibald Block

A blog dedicated to Edmonton's built heritage.

forgottenedmonton.blogspot.com

I accumulated a bunch of images while researching this but I didn’t want to cram up my page with them. I'll leave some of them here. Firstly is a higher quality scan of the Archibald Block:

It comes from this picture. Taken in May 1942, it depicts Royal Canadian Air Force cadets parading east down Whyte Avenue. The airmen here were likely members of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan school being housed at the University of Alberta. It’s a scan from a book, but there’s some really great details for anyone interested in looking closer:

In my write-up I mentioned both Seymour Archibald and Fred Morie served during the Great War. Here's the two's enlistment papers. Archibald served in the Canadian Army Medical Corps as a Captain. Morie enlisted in the 202nd Sportsman Battalion, a unit which recruited in South Edmonton. The 202nd never saw combat as a complete whole and were instead broken down to send replacements to other struggling battalions. Interestingly, Morie's papers are addressed to the Archibald Block:

And pictures of the Morie brothers. John's, on the left, comes from the September 29th, 1960 issue of the Edmonton Journal. Fred's, on the right, comes from the May 16th, 1965 Journal:

 

[kcantor]

You should send this to everyone on council, not just for The Archibald Block but for our older inventory in general - maybe they will develop an appreciation for what’s behind the current envelope face...